Writing to Mean
Computer-mediated Feedback in Online Tutoring of Multidraft Compositions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v24i1.97-114Keywords:
Computer-mediated Communication, Form-focused Feedback, Content-based Feedback, Minimal Terminal Unit (t-unit), Information Unit (i-unit)Abstract
This paper reports the findings of a case study that explores the relationship between feedback and revision in the online teaching of two EFL adult writers. The model of feedback adopted was one of content-based feedback followed by form-focused feedback in a series of multidraft compositions. A quantitative analysis of minimal terminal units (t-units) (Hunt, 1965) was used to analyze the relationship of feedback and revision following the two types of feedback. A paired t test showed content-based feedback to yield significantly more revisions than form-focused feedback, (p < .001). To obtain a measure of the amount of information conveyed per draft, information units or "i-units" were then defined (see Savignon, 1972). Drafts subsequent to content-based feedback showed a greater increase in i-units than did those following form-focused feedback, (p < .05). Discourse analysis was then conducted to examine the negotiation of meaning that took place between feedback and revision. Content-based feedback was analyzed with particular attention to a type of commentary known as "question-form comments." Question-form feedback was seen to prompt direct responses from both learners. Implications of these findings are drawn for the role of teacher feedback, both in computer-mediated and more traditional teaching contexts of second-language writing.
References
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9 (3), 227-257.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.) Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bloch, J. (2002). Student/teacher interaction via email: The social context of Internet discourse. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11 (2), 117-134.
Conrad, S., & Goldstein, L. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (2), 147179.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (2), 315-339.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (1), 1-10.
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication and fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81 (3), 285-300.
Flowers, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32 (4), 365-87.
Gaies, S. J. (1980). T-unit analysis in second language research: Applications, problems and limitations. TESOL Quarterly, 14 (1), 53-59.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3 (2), 141-163.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Teaching grammar in writing classes. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. ESL and Applied Linguistics Professional Series. Mawwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (Research Report No. 3). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 (3), 255-286.
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10 (2), 185-212.
Kachru, B. (1988). Teaching world Englishes. ERIC/CLL News Bulletin, 12, 1.
Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75 (3), 305-13.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24 (3), 203-18.
Makino, T.-Y. (1993). Learner self-correction in EFL written compositions. ELT Journal, 47 (4), 337-41.
Musumeci, D. (2002). The use of technology in high-enrollment courses: Implications for teacher education and communicative language. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Nagel, S. P. (1999). Email in the virtual ESL/EFL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 5 (7). Retrieved April 16, 2006, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Nagel-Email.html
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (1), 83-93.
Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign language teaching. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence, theory and classroom practice: Texts and contexts in second language learning (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence, theory and classroom practice: Texts and contexts in second language learning (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Savignon, S. J. (2001). Communicative language teaching for the twenty-first century. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or third language (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Savignon, S. J., & Wang, C. C. (2003). Communicative language teaching in EFL contexts: Learner attitudes and perceptions. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41 (3), 223-249.
Semke, H. D. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17 (2), 195202.
Silva, T., Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Broadening the perspective of mainstream composition studies. Written Communication, 14 (3), 398-428.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46 (2), 327-369.
Wang, Y. M. (1993). E-mail dialogue journaling in an ESL reading and writing classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Warschauer, M., & Lepeintre, S. (1997). Freire’s dream or Foucault’s nightmare: Teacherstudent relations on an international computer network. In R. Debski, J. Gassin, & M. Smith (Eds.), Language learning through social computing (pp. 67-89). Parkville, Australia: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.
Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in context. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (1), 79-97.
